This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Burdick v. Takushi: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
Burdick sought to cast a protest vote for the fictional cartoon character Donald Duck.
Burdick sought to cast a protest vote for the fictional cartoon character Donald Duck.
|procedural_history=Burdick (plaintiff), a registered voter in Hawaii, sued Takushi (defendant), Hawaii's Director of Elections.
|procedural_history=Burdick (plaintiff), a registered voter in Hawaii, sued Takushi (defendant), Hawaii's Director of Elections.
|arguments=Was Hawaii's prohibition against a protest vote a reasonable burden?
|holding=A state's prohibition against write-in candidates is permissible.
|holding=A state's prohibition against write-in candidates is permissible.
|reasons=There is no right to cast a protest vote for a fictional candidate. SCOTUS asserts that a protest vote interferes with an orderly election process.
|reasons=There is no right to cast a protest vote for a fictional candidate. SCOTUS asserts that a protest vote interferes with an orderly election process.

Revision as of 19:43, December 28, 2022

Burdick v. Takushi
Court Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
Date decided June 8, 1992

Facts

Voting is a fundamental right in the United States.

In the early 1990s, write-in candidates couldn't be placed on ballots in the state of Hawaii. All political candidates had to win a primary election in order to secure a spot on the ballot for the general election.

Burdick sought to cast a protest vote for the fictional cartoon character Donald Duck.

Procedural History

Burdick (plaintiff), a registered voter in Hawaii, sued Takushi (defendant), Hawaii's Director of Elections.

Arguments

Was Hawaii's prohibition against a protest vote a reasonable burden?

Holding

A state's prohibition against write-in candidates is permissible.

Reasons

There is no right to cast a protest vote for a fictional candidate. SCOTUS asserts that a protest vote interferes with an orderly election process.

Rule

States may restrict the right to vote. For example, felons face disenfranchisement in most states. Non-citizens aren't allowed to vote in U.S. elections.

Case Text Links